Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
MSNBCW 35
CNNW 31
MSNBC 10
CNBC 9
CNN 7
FBC 5
KGO (ABC) 2
KPIX (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 118
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 118 (some duplicates have been removed)
. and then this party that paraded around as the big deficit hawks, the guys that wanted to control spending, the only cuts they put on the table is playing at margins, increasing retirement age from 65 to 67 and adjusting rates for social security. this hasn't presented itself as a party that wants to cut spending. on one hand you have president obama's proposal, which most agree is the responsible way of raising the debt, raising rates. and responsible cuts on entitlements and discretionary spending versus republicans who are divided against something that is a chicken hawk when it comes to the deficits, that is the boehner approach, or the more extremist position which is absolutely nothing.ç so this is an extraordinary position for the republican party to have evolved into. >> you must respond to what julian just said. >> i like julian an awful lot but i think what he said is entirely wrong. it's fascinating president obama last july, july of 2011, said we can get $1.2 trillion in revenue where we don't have to raise marginal tax rates and close loopholes and julian says most economists agree, i
months noctober and november... the deficit, almost $300 billion, $4.8 billion a day. they had $30 billion in revenue. but the spending is up 3 times that much, $87 billion. how do woe stop the out-of- control spending? how can we get the budget deficit under control? can we do that for our children and grandchildren? >> we don't cut back on medicare and social security benefits that impact middle-class and working families. we start with the rich. that's what the voters wanted. they don't want -- middle-class families like mine, they don't want to see their taxes go up $2200 after january 1. they want to keep the tax deductions that they have and allow for people who can afford it to pay down some of this debt and deficit-- >>> trey -- [overlapping dialogue] >> eric: how do we pay this down? >> eric, what you are hearing is very unfortunate because you asked a specific question about cutting spending, democrats will not talk about it. she won't talk about it right now. -- >>> that's not my question. how do we stop the spending? >> how we stop the spenning is to over the dlif and h
would be good? >> we have an enormous deficit problem in the united states. nobody's dealt with it since bill clinton was president of the united states. there are a number of things we're going to have to do in order to meet our deficit. we're going to have to both raise taxes and cut spending. one of the areas we must cut spending is defense. there hasn't been serious cuts in defense in 30 years. the defense industry is well positioned. they have plants in something in over 300 districts. there's a lot of bipartisan defense spending. for example, the defense authorization bill that just passed yesterday in the senate gave the pentagon $17 billion more than they asked for. so to think that any industry or any taxpayer or any group of people who depend on government spending can be exempted from the serious problem that we have that's caused by this deficit is a mistake. everybody is going to have to pay for this. >> dawn, right or wrong, the defense industry has this reputation of being bloated, overcharging. are we at a point where we could afford to make cuts in defense spending to tr
to reduce the deficit, 63% said no. 86% of the ads run for obama were personal attacks on romney. he won a stunning mandate to not be romney. he did not run on the basis he was going to do massive new spending and the kind of tax increases, $1.6 trillion that he's now talking about. and at the same time that obama was elected president, the republican house, which had twice voted for a real budget -- remember, the president's budget he claims he has a mandate for was put up before the house and the democrats all voted against it. in the senate, the democrats didn't want to have anything to do with it. it's a little hard to argue, he had a mandate for something the rest of his party ran away from. >> well -- >> did not run ads on those issues. >> and, of course, it was a bit more complicated than that. but to your point about the exit polls, it's true, most people said that they didn't want tax increases to solve the deficit. what they said -- the majority, was they wanted both balanced. they wanted cuts and tax increases. which is what both john boehner and the president -- in very strid
at revenue from somebody. on the state side, when i got elections a $3.65 billion deficit. the worst in the nation. i quickly realized it's too large to tax your way out of or to cut your way out. it had to be a combination. that portion hasn't happened to the extent we presumed it would. this year, we have to trim expenditures by $365 million more than we otherwise would have. but, the grand bargain with the public is, to maintain a level of service they have a comfort level with. to not overdo it, not overextend ones self. >> when grow to voters and say, we are going to raise taxes, what is the pitch? >> i did 14 town hall meetings, no, 17 town hall meetings and got yelled at at every single one of them. we had a conversation with the public about what are the options. if you are talking cutting a budget by 17% because that's what the revenue short fall was, they quickly understood, you can't cut a budget 17% in a single year and sustain the level of services that allow their children to be educate and their mother and father remain in a nursing home and receive benefits and so see
revenue to have meaningful deficit reduction. and unfortunately, the changes in the tax code, which the republicans say they want to turn to, will start increasing taxes and cutting tax deductions for the middle class americans. >> senator, can i stop you on that point? i think that's significant. what you just said is what the president has said, is that we can't get enough revenue to solve the problem unless the rates go up. but wait a minute. last summer, in july of 2011, this is what he said about how to get to $1.2 trillion in revenue. listen. >> what we said was, give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues. which could be accomplished without hiking taxes -- tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions, and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally, while broadening the base. >> so if that was true then, senator, why can't he just do tax deductions? republicans say they would agree to that, and not focus so much on raising the top rates? >> david, we have set a target of cutting $4 trillion ou
been making noise for the last few years about the deficit. democrats have mimicked the noise. yes, we have a huge deficit problem. you get in public opinion polls, overwhelming majorities say yes. they look at the polls and respond to it. something similar happened on medicare. we have the notion of there's a medicare crisis. there's an entitlement. this is a health care crisis. >> i really need to say about jonathans piece. i am liberal, but that is the worst example i have heard. take people out of a popular -- i hope this is not the white house position. take people out of a popular program that works and they love, put them into obama care that is not so popular and they don't necessarily love. take away something they like and give them something liberals think they should like. >> the right question is, the portuguese have an average income lower than ours with universal health care. it costs two-thirds of their economy compared to our economy. we are having the wrong discussion. here is the program. start by lowering medicare is an option to 55 or 40. stop reacting to what -- >
't raise enough taxes to completely deal with the deficit. and you do have to do reforms. you need to reform the tax system. you certainly need to make additional cuts. i do want to remind you though, that we have already voted on one trillion dollars of cuts, cuts that would cause great pain. i agree what you 100%. it can not be done. melissa: spending cutting numbers are even smaller than the tax numbers. they don't get us there either. i'm worried about stalling the economy. in the meantime when we talk about raising taxes and what it would do to small business. democrats like to point out we would only raise taxes on 3% of small business owners. >> right. melissa: but that 3% generates 50% of the income from small business. so they're hiring the majority of people. to me that is going to cost us jobs. >> well, you know what? i think that what will cost us jobs for sure is if we go off thissfiscal cliff, because it is not just about raising tacks. it is also about the debt ceiling. it is about unemployment insurance. we have number of key issues that absolutely have to be resolv
who actually came up with a plan to cut the deficit, a plan that everyone hailed as magnificent but no one wanted to adopt. >>> joining me now is cnn contributor will cain. he leans right. good morning, will. >> good morning. let me tell you something. you said the popularity of gangnam style knows no limits. i beg to differ. >> you do? >> i think we just found its limits, when 8-year-olds start doing gangnam style you can count on its popularity decreasing. we're about a year away from it being makarena. >> trying to get two sides come together to come to a deal on the fiscal cliff. >> i don't know about young people's abilities to force cats and dogs and democrats and republicans to come together to find a deal. he had a much more profound message than just simply dancing in that clip, in that psa essentially. he was trying to alert young people to the fact that old people, bluntly, are organized. look at the army of aarp representatives that ensure that programs like medicare and social security, programs that take up something like 50% of our federal budget will remain intac
of a process to reduce the deficit the others face. >> republicans don't like owning reform either. this was tom cole on sunday. >> only obama can fix entitlements. democrat versus democrat fight over entitlement which mirrors their fighting over taxes. a response to an argument that was starting before former adviser steve ratner and minnesota democratic congressman keith ellison with near glee. there is no real choice about that. we're clear social security is off the table. this is, to me, the much more interesting debate between tom and dan. >> you want republicans arguing. both sides are also battling for control of the debt ceiling which may represent the republicans' greatest point of leverage in these budget talks. goo the speaker of the house says that's a nonstarter. >> silliness. congress will never give up the power. i've made it clear to the president. we need cuts in reform greater than the increase in the debt limit. >> bottom line, you've got to put a detailed plan on the table that the white house ends up agreeing to some of it, rejects some of it in the same way t
the tax rate hike that he wanted, understand that we would continue to see trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. listen, washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. and if the president doesn't agree with our proposal, i believe he has an obligation to families and small businesses, to offer a plan of his own, a plan that can pass both chambers of the congress. we're ready and eager to talk to the president about such a plan. >> speaker, you spoke with the president earlier this week. can you characterize this call? if he called, did he have any kind of counteroffer? and also, we understand that he's just making clear that it's got to be increase in rates for the wealthy or no deal. are you willing to give a little bit, maybe just not all the way to 39.6? >> it was -- the phone call was pleasant but was just more of the same. the conversation that the staff had yesterday, just more of the same. it's time for the president, if he's serious, to come back to us with a counteroffer. >> mr. speaker, the jobs report today indicated unemployment is down roug
the tax increase he wants the country would be facing trillion dollar deficits. >> this isn't a progress report because there is in progress to report. when it comes to the fiscal cliff threatening our economy and jobs the white house has wasted another week. >>reporter: he calls officials saying they are ready to go over the trip. >>shepard: democrats insist that revenue, revenue, revenue is the key. >>guest: president obama campaigned on it and obviously won and democrats insist upper income americans should pay higher taxes but there could be room to negotiate but their point is they don't want to talk about other aspects of a deal until the g.o.p. gives in on their demand for more tax money. >> what is lacking are the revenues. we cannot cut your way to deficit reduction. what reduces the deficit are jobs. job creation. after spending cuts, and medicare saving, and next is the revenue. >>reporter: leader pelosi spent time at the white house today meeting with president obama on what we are told are a number of issues. >>shepard: thank you, mike, from washington, dc. we know that busi
? if it is to reduce the deficit, it won't happen because if they take that money it, may run the government for 8 days. so we're not talking about an amount of money that's really going to fundamentally change either the ability to fund government or reduce the deficit. is it because he wants to punish people at the top? why? what is that to him? that doesn't help people at the bottom. if it did, then it could be justified. and i guess the president has yet to explain other than fair share if you think about it top 10% pay a 7% of all the federal taxes so what is a fair share? >> geraldo: but that is what he campaigned on isn't that in itself its own justification be it -- albeit that it is 8 days out of 365? >> i think what he campaigned on certainly thats with a one of the things that he hammered of but hes said he was going to get the federal deficit down and federal spending under will cro. he said he was going to take on freely transparent. talk about a president who has broken campaign promises. what he needs to understand that his job is not it campaign anymore. find something that can be agree
're running a trillion dollar deficit year single year. if we went back to zero, we're rebalanced. right now with the fourth year in a row, that deficit and debt continues to climb. so it doesn't really wipe it out and the challenge of it is what does that do to the overall economy. we're not just dealing with one tax increase as well. a lot of people lose track of that. the affordable care about actually begin on january 1st as well for people making $200,000 or more. or people having large medical bills. this is talking about an additional tax increase on top of that. >> what about what bill clinton said? he said once things start to get better and that's a crucial point he was making. once the economy starts to get better, taxes have to go up on the middle class. do you agree? is. >> i don't, actually. and the reason being is that right now, if you look at the real math, in 2007 and 012, we have the same amount of revenue. now, 2008 and 2009, we had a dramatic drop in federal revenues, but we've slowly climbed back up. revenue has gone up every year of the obama administration and now, we
is that at a minimum, any deficit package has to include this immediate february and march debt ceiling that we're going to hit. >> is jack lew the current chief of staff and former budget director the top candidate to be treasury? what is your best guess? >> he appears to be the frontrunner from everything you see and read and hear and he is a -- i've known him a long time. he's an accomplished guy. he knows these issues perfectly. he has worked in the financial community and has a sense of that and vice versa. and so i think he would be a it terrific choice. >> we should say there are a couple other people who have been rumored to being vetted. roger altman, former treasury official, larry fink, be erskine bowles. this what is alan simpson, erskine bowles' partner in the deficit commission, had to say about that possibility last week on the show. >> he said he would be very pleased to do that. he shared that with me personally, as long as they move the treasury department to north carolina, to charlotte. i don't think -- >> he's worked so hard on this. you don't think he could be persuaded? >
is the problem? we cannot raise taxes enough to take care of $1 trillion worth of deficit spending every single year. so let's get off of this and get on to the other side and start talking about what we have to do to cut our spending, to reform those entitlement programs that are the debt drivers and then do pro-growth tax reform that will stimulate the economy, get the money coming in. it's the best way to get money coming in and that gives everybody a job and helps to take care of the fiscal problem and balanced is what we need. >> congresswoman diane black, thank you for joining me this morning. i appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> i want to bring in our political power panel. political reporter, karen tumult, karen finney and robert trainam. karen, since i know you the best, i'm going to call you k-fin as not to confuse everyone. it seems the taxes are going to go up on the wealthy. the question is whether or not it's through the tax increases or closing the loopholes and the deductions. so do you think that we are closer to a deal today than yesterday if. >> i do. in that now they're
it's not 17% of our debt because right now we have a trillion dollar deficit every single year. if we went back to zero, that's true. right now with fourth year in a row with over a trillion dollars in deficit spending, that deficit and debt continues it to climb. it doesn't wipe it out. what does it do to the overall economy. we're not just dealing with one tax increase right now. the affordable care act actually begin on january 1st as well for people making $200,000 or more or people with large medical bills. that already starts coming up. this is an additional tax increase on top of that tax increase. >> what about what bill clinton said? he said once things start to get better, and that's a crucial point he was making. he wasn't saying doing it right away. once it gets better, taxes go up on the middle class. do you agree with that? >> i don't, actually. the reason being is that right now if you look at the real math on it, in 2007 and 2012 we have the same amount of revenue. obviously 2008 and '09 we had a dramatic drop in federal revenues coming in. we've slowly climbed back up
a plan not just to avert the fiscal cliff, but importantly to really tackle the deficit and debt problems in this country. i am concerned that deal won't be big enough. is it going to be small or medium or big. we need a plan big enough to fix the deficit problems and make sure the debt is no longer growing faster than the economy. we're not going to be able to balance the budget in the near future because the fiscal hole is so big. you want to make sure the debt is not growing faster than the economy. that's going to take $4 trillion in savings. you need all parts on the table and constructed in a thoughtful way so that revenues are raised in ways that are good for the economy as possible, and that when we're looking at the spending in the budget, we reform our entitlement programs and reduce spending in way that's thoughtful and good for the economy. it's going to take a lot to get there, but i actually think most of the policy ideas are well known and we're now in this political negotiation where i think there's a lot of support for having them, if they're going to go through all this,
to the deficit. it's just irresponsible to even put social security in a discussion as we are trying to get some kind of deal. medicare can, i think, be massaged in terms of means testing. with the upper income individuals paying more or sometimes all of their medical expenses. it makes no sense for the government to pay medicare costs for somebody who is earning $700,000 a year. a million dollars a year. so i think we can do some means testing. but by no means am i saying it the means test should be low enough so that our elderly and our poorest americans are going to pay for the deficit. but we want a deal. we want a deal. we'll deal with medicare. and keep in mind, i think this is very important. if the bush tax cuts are expired, as they will be, just as sure as today is friday, they are gone, that generates $950 billion toward the deficit over a ten-year period. we'd set aside $1.2 trillion. we're almost there. and if you do means testing on medicare, we make it. >> well, the republicans would never go along with that kind of means testing because that would hit the wealthier americans. that
to the white house press secretary says, look, the whole thing here is not about deficit reduction, listen. >> deficit reduction in and of itself is not the goal here. the reason to get our fiscal house in order. the reason to pass a deficit reduction package that is balanced and allows for economic growth and job creation is to put our economy on a sustainable fiscal path, which, then itself produces positive economic benefits and growth and jobs. >> okay. so here's the problem with that jay carney speaking for the president. speaking for the president, president obama, think back a couple years ago, in fact, it was october of 2008 when he was senator obama wanting to be president obama. he was concerned about the deficit and the debt. listen to what he had to say back then. >> the problem is the way bush has done it over the last 8 years is to take out a credit card from the bank of china in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion from the first 42 presidents, number 43 ed a $4 trillion by his lonesome so we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we're goi
overwhelming the deficit story was at that point. you know, you look at that administration. the coming in, just no one thought they could do anything. it's not unlike the conversations we're having now. and they went in, they did the deal, president bush had to shift from read my lips to as only he could put it, read my hips. and it was good for the country, it created a political dynamic that cost president bush the election in 1992, and which we're still living, because that gave us grover norquist, et cetera. >> let's get to grover norquist in a minute, but i do have a question. the gop plan consists of $2.2 trillion in savings over a decade. that includes raging the eligibility age for medicare from 65 to 67. and lowering cost of living increases for social security benefits. they also propose overhauling the tax code to generate $800 billion in new revenue. but without raising taxes on the wealthy. in a letter to the president, leading republicans compared their plan to one erskine bowles drew up last year. >> not even close. >> he rejected that connection and the white house, of cou
. >> what the president has said is we need $1.6 trillion as part of an overall deficit reduction plan, because if you don't get those additional revenues, but you also try and reduce the deficit, you end up whacking everybody else much harder. and so, it's really important to have that revenue number as high as possible. >> sure. >> look, the president's already been clear, ed. on cuts, he will continue to implement over the next ten years over $1 trillion in cuts that he agreed to as part of the budget control act, 100% cuts. and at the time, he said we've got to come back and do revenue. he "life & style weeklalso call billion in cuts and laid out exactly what those should be. >> catch "the ed show" here at 8:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc, the place for politics. >>> well, new jersey governor chris christie is making a personal plea for federal disaster aid in the wake of hurricane sandy. the republican governor paid an unannounced visit to the white house to ask the president for $83 billion in aid for new jersey, new york and connecticut. he also met with members of congress. it was th
. a long-term debt and deficit problems, and these are the folks who have to fix it. how close are they? >> i think we're going over the cliff. >> we can't sit here and try to figure out what works for them. >> we look forward to the time when they are specific. >> they need to be more specific. >> they have to be willing to come to the table with specifics. >> we've not had any discussion and specifics with this president about the real problem. >> we need a response from the white house. we can't sit here and negotiate with ourselves. >> i will not play that game. >> further apart than ever. you've heard endless arguing about higher taxes on the rich. let's set that aside and talk about the sequester the budget wonk word for a thing that will touch every american. $1.2 trillion in automatic budget cuts over the next decade, 100 billion next year alone, half in defense and half in non-defense, defense programs cut by 9.4% across the board and non-defense programs 8.2%. agencies are being told to identify the cuts. how will you feel them? fewer food inspections are likely. cdc budget cu
thought you should take a look. it totals $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years. the part that stood out to us was $600 billion in proposed savings in medicare reforms. how? in part by raising the age of eligibility to 65 to maybe 67. turning down the gop proposal, dan pfieffer said, quote, it provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which medicare savings they would achieve." let's head now to the white house and dan lothian. the white house will not offer a counter proposal, right? what's going on here? >> reporter: well, you know, i think the white house is digging in. the president said early on in this process that he would only sit down and really move forward, negotiate on this in any meaningful way if the tax hikes for the wealthy expired. and republicans have been pushing back on that -- tax breaks rather for the wealthy expired and republicans have been pushing back on that, say they go believe that will be harmful for the economic recovery because wealthy americans are the ones who are creating the jobs and
that if we go over the cliff the deficit goes up. >> and the debt goes up. >> and the debt goes up. >> wrong. >> like our relationship people don't get it. >> deficit almost goes away. difference is about $8 trillion. >> about 10.5. >> join us tomorrow. right now it's time for "squawk on the street." >>> good wednesday morning. welcome to "squawk on the street." live at the nyse. what a morning shaping up here. a little data to look at. m&a. the president speaks to the business roundtable in a couple of hours. futures with modest gains. europe holding onto gains and china up nearly 3% over night as shanghai catches a break. our road map begins with a $20 billion deal. freeport mcmoran getting into the energy business making two acquisitions. plains exploration and mcmoran exploration. >>> concerns over the u.s. economy as adp misses estimates. the blame goes to superstorm sandy. goldman says the party is officially over for gold. >> starbucks at an investors conference will add 1,500 stores in the u.s. over the next five years. wait until you hear what they said about china. >> a big day in
that calls for $2.2 trillion in deficit savings. it includes $800 billion in tax reforms, 600 billion in medicare reforms and 600 billion in spending cuts. because it doesn't contain tax hikes for the wealthiest americans or specifics about which loopholes will be eliminated, the president immediately rejected the republican proposal. want to know how far apart democrats and republicans are? listen to this. >> i think we're going over the cliff. >> it's unfortunate the white house has spent three weeks doing basically nothing. >> what we can't do is sit here trying to figure out what works for them. >> the president's idea of negotiation is roll over and do what i ask. >> it's clear to me they made a political calculation. if their ideas are different from ours, we can't guess what they are. >> they need to be more specific. >> some specificity from them. >> he can't be serious. >> haven't even begun to be serious. >> we need to get serious. >> i don't think they're serious. >> i would say we're nowhere. period. we're nowhere. >> hard to disagree with that. we're nowhere. period. >> t
benefits to help reduce the other deficits. >> to be clear that's one thing that's clearly off the table. social security is off the tables in these negotiations. >> in a separate process to strengthen social security not as a process to reduce the deficit. >>> on the issues of taxes, is there any flexibility on the president's position? does it have to go all the way back to the tax rates on the wealthy to the clinton levels? >> again, george, we think the best way to do this is to have those tax rates go back to where and one of the best, at one of the most prosperous times in recent american history to combine that reforms that limit reductions for 2%, i'm deeply skeptical about ways to get through this without that mix of rates and reforms. >> and if congress doesn't agree, you're comfortable going over that cliff on january 1st? >> there's no reason why 98% of americans have to see their taxes go up because some members of congress on the republican side want to block tax rate increase for 2% of the wealthy americans. remember, those tax cuts cost a trillion dollars over ten years.
't think any credible economist will tell you we can simply cut our way out of the current deficits and debt. we need new revenues, and where should they come from? should they come from a middle class or working families that have really struggled or had setbacks in the last decade, or should it come from families that have done very well and can be asked to do more? if you look at the prosperity we enjoyed during the clinton administration when the tax rates were higher on upper income families, that certainly didn't kill economic growth. we have incredible economic growth during the clinton years. this same, tired argument that we hear time and time again that any kind of tax increase on anyone will hurt the economy, it isn't borne out by history. >> there are analysts that say both of these proposals are essentially for the base, and na in reality both sides know you'll come to the middle. you have johnny isakson who said earlier there's too much posturing going on here. what is your response that in relation the proposal from the white house and the president as well as from sp
deal with the deficit? that's not coming from the markets. the bond market is saying here's the money you want and we're kind of creating these things out of nowhere to force us to deal with the long-term deficit problem but the short term markets aren't doing it. >> neil, talk about these markets you speak of. i want to play a clip of maria the other day. >> the markets right now are expecting a deal. the markets have been trading fine. if we don't gate deal, we are going to see a sizable decline in stocks. we are going to get a big disappointment. >> markets will be disappointed. the markets have expectations. who is this mr. markets that is endowed with the personality anç expectations and is this monolithic creature that will respond to, you know, what's going on in washington? are we giving the markets a little bit too much personality here? >> well, yeah. i mean, obviously the market is millions of people and institutions all over the world deciding whether to buy stocks or bonds or whatever but more broadly, you know, it is true that markets aren't, you know, they're not alway
, in the end, the taxes are going up. we still have a trillion dollar deficit. this does not solve anything. at best, even if they raise the money they think they will, and i don't think they will raise any money, they are still left with a trillion dollar deficit. how are you going to bring down a trillion dollar deficit? i think the democrats are on -- i had to get that off my chest. stuart: gm car and truck sales are up 3%. the stock, dead flat. sales up 3%. that is the car sales numbers coming in today. steve, i want to get back to you here. the democrats say, wait a second, wait a second, you raise taxes on the rich just like the clinton did back in 1992 and you end up with a bill. you have a solid expansion. what do you make up with that argument? >> i hope they do not believe that argument. look, maybe barack obama is right. maybe if you raise these taxes, it will not hurt the economy. [talking over each other] stuart: bill clinton raised taxes and the economy took off. >> there are a lot of things that influence the economy. not just taxes. there are other things. there is no moneta
not an issue here. social security didn't contribute to the deficits and debt. i don't think there will be any appetite whatsoever for touching social security. but those points i think democrats are quite unified on. the area where i think there is room for negotiation and compromise is, the rates are going to go up. i think we all recognize that. will the rates go up completely? are there other ways where they can come up somewhat short of that but make up the revenues by reducing deductions from higher income families? >> so the deal that we're talking about is halfway between the current rate and the former rate? >> well, i wouldn't say halfway. but i would say, as long as you can get to the revenues, if you can increase the rates and reduce the deductions for upper income households, you can get to the same dollar number and i think there's a willingness to entertain that. it does tend to complicate the tax code. the simplest way is simply to raise the tax rates up to the clinton levels and, you know, we do have a strong interest in simplifying the tax code. but if that's politically for
social security is not connected to the deficit. a separate program, funded separately in the own trust fund. that needs to be dealt with separately. with regard to medicare and medicaid, those programs are floating on the overall inflation rate in healthcare. what we need to do, this is a major part of the affordable healthcare act was to bend the cost curve to bridge down the inflation rate in healthcare. in fact, in the last two year years, the inflation rate in medicare has been remarkably low. much to the surprise of everybody. some in the two or 3% range. that is incredible. part of that is due to the affordable healthcare act. undoubtedly to others. with regard to the doctor payments, that is an annual problem here in washington. started back in the early 2000s. continued to be an annual problem. called the doctor fix. i guess for budgeting reasons, way back when they decided that they would only fund that increase in doctor payments for one year. then every year it comes up. every year it grows because of the general inflation in healthcare. it needs to be fixed permanently as p
balanced approach to the deficit. it does have some revenue in it, even though it's not from tax increases. so what does this opening offer say about where we are in these negotiations? >> well, it seems very difficult to imagine that we're going to be getting to a deal that will handle everything that needs to be addressed before the end of the year. i think the first main thing that needs to be addressed is the question of the tax cuts expiring. and for the obama administration, the question is, is it in their interest to trade tax cuts for the wealthy? increase for the wealthy for raising the age for eligibility for medicare, for example. i'm not sure that that's a trade that they are eager to make immediately. >> let me show you the side by side comparison. the president wants $1.6 trillion in revenue and republicans want to cap the same deductions for the rich but republicans want to change the age to 67 and change the way they calculate social security payments. i wonder, though, when we look at these numbers, are we that far apart in. >> i think they are definitely rather far aare p
medicare, medicaid and social security to be used as part of a deficit-reducing bill in such a short period of time. >> the clock is winding down toward the fiscal cliff. once considered an untouchable third rail, changes for social security and other so called entitlementeds are now being seriously discussed. >> we really have not begun to talk about real entitlement reforms. the only way to have a true avoidance is to mix an appropriate amount of revenues with true retirement reform. until the debate moves to that point, there's really no serious debate taking place. squeezing out savings from social security by changing the way inflation is calculated and possible means testing that could disqualify wealthier, older americans from the medicare program. lawmakers insist any changes will be done gradually and will not impact current retirees. but that's not soothing the fears of senior who is say inflation adjustments will have an immediate impact. >> to tell someone who's living on social security, one out of every flthree relies on just social security for their income, to tell them i'm
put together a plan to move us towards some kind of deficit reduction package eventually evolved into the simpson-bowles commission plan. but the point i was making and i think the speaker is making is republicans have not come out here with some hardball, crazy off-the-table negotiation. what they have done is put something that bill clinton's former chief of staff at one time odd voe indicated for. and i think in the end that reflects that we are moving toward the potential compromise deal. >> he said -- >> i think i'm inappropriately in the middle here. i ought to be over there on the left. what bowles said yesterday was i was testifying before congress, and i described that as a midpoint between what republicans want and what democrats wanted. it was not what i would recommend. but i don't think that's even relevant. >> -- circumstances have changed since then. >> i don't even think that's relevant. i think the real question here and i think ron's right about this is are tax rates going to go up? yes, they're going to go up, because republicans are not going to have to vote f
him for a long time, deficit hawk. they haven't allowed him to put a budget out for years. he's growing frustrated. i'm sure he's going to be glad to leave. but i was surprised by that as well. you see also, sam stein, republicans are now starting to really bash boehner from the right. the president needs to take note. he needs to take note. >> give him some running room. >> i'm only saying this because you remember, we went through this with newt. you know, bill clinton would push newt only so far, and then the conservatives in the caucus like myself and matt salmon, steve largent and others would say we're not doing a deal. we will take this place down. we're not doing a deal. and then newt would call bill clinton up and say, you're pushing me too far. you've got to work with me here. the same thing's happening right now with boehner. >> with boehner. >> the republican -- and when you start stripping people of committee -- committee seats, war breaks out and it gets really -- it happened with us. it's about to happen here. he's got to realize that boehner is his partner. >>
for raising revenues, cutting spending and reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years. he said the ball is in the g.o.p.'s court. >> you have heard them for the first time i think in two decades they are willing to have revenues go up to make a balanced plan but they have to tell you what they want do on rates and revenues. >> he says there is no plan to an agreement unless they acknowledge tax rates have to go up for the wealthiest americans. >> heather: thank you very much. with less than one month to reach a deal there is new urgency to reach a deal. coming up our political panel will debate the zik go points. >> brand-new reaction today from the potential nominee of u.n. ambassador susan rice to be the next secretary of state. a senator reiterating concerns about statements she made following the benghazi attack that left four americans dead. in the meantime, clare mccaskill came to the ambassador's defense. >> she had reviewed the dpeor foer going. >> on sunday shows and went well beyond the talking points, we have decimated al-qaeda, that was nowhere on the talking points
and deficit -- why would the president be proposing $255 billion in war spending? >> well, he's not. what he is proposing is shifting spending priorities. after those cuts, shifting priorities, and by the way -- this is infrastructure development. this is to make sure that people who have gone the payroll tax relief keep that payroll tax relief and expanding unemployment benefits. i will say this. this is the president's initial proposal. the silence from the republicans is deafening. they can counter this. but all they have done is whine and weep and cry and laugh about like hysterical children. where is there for books will? be one less give the viewers the numbers. if there is a 50 billion dollars stimulus proposal for the infrastructure problem, he also wants to extend unemployment benefits and extend the two percentage point payroll tax and adding it all up together, it equals $255 billion out of the federal government pocket. we got into this cliff because they thought there was too much spending that we could not pay for, and they made the president insists that he wanted to raise our
's the federal deficit. it's the federal debt, which is a huge risk for national security. right now the defense department has taken, as i said, about can half a trillion dollars of deduction in the first round but the strategy aligns to the point we can meet national security objectives and still accomplish or make though cuts. if you start putting another half a trillion on top of, that you shatter the strategy. and then national security has to be free thought. i propose we need more of a fiscal stairstep reduction so that reductions can be made with strategy in mind. strategy and national security needs have got to be tweaked and done in concert. that's the way to do this. and i think in the end, you know, you're going to have to see reduction -- you're going to have to see more reductions in defense, but hopefully nowhere near the levels that the fiscal cliff and sequestration would impose. >> so, are employees expecting this? i mean, have you to be living under a rock not to see what's going on with the fiscal cliff, but are you planning on laying off employees if sequestration is trigger
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 118 (some duplicates have been removed)